Logo G o o d  M o r n i n g !

via THE WEEKLY DETAIL
 
Monday, October 19, 2009
The purpose of the Detail is to help keep you informed of the current state of affairs in the latent print community, to provide an avenue to circulate original fingerprint-related articles, and to announce important events as they happen in our field.
Detail Archives Discuss This Issue Subscribe to The Detail Search Past Details Unsubscribe
Breaking NEWz you can UzE...

by Stephanie Potter

Court denies appeal in 1988 slayings of HGO tenors
Houston Chronicle 10-12-09
The double murders remained unsolved until 1998 when improved fingerprint technology allowed investigators to link bloody fingerprints found in the ...

 

Jury Selection Continues For Man Police Call Wooded Rapist
NewsChannel5.com 10-12-09
Prosecutors said they've got DNA and finger print evidence to prove Burdick attacked and raped Young. Earlier this year in an exclusive interview with ...

 

Fingerprint led police to 'River Rat' suspect
TheNewsTribune.com 10-13-09
Detectives sent the print to the Automatic Fingerprint Identification System to see whether it matched previously entered fingerprints. ...

 

Potomac Teens Charged in Man's Murder
MyFox Washington DC 10-15-09
Inside the car, police say they found the finger prints of Emily Geller. In the home of her 15-year-old accomplice, police say they found the victim's cell ...

 

Edwin Chandler Cleared Of All Charges After Spending 9 Years In Prison
Thaindian.com 10-15-09
It was the account of two witnesses and a finger print that had been left on a beer bottle at the scene of the crime, that helped clear the name of Chandler ...

Recent CLPEX Posting Activity

Forensic opening - Ontario, Ca
by jpadilla5 » Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:52 pm 0 Replies 9 Views Last post by jpadilla5
Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:52 pm

Fingerprint Society Update
by fpsociety » Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:46 am 7 Replies 337 Views Last post by Colin
Sun Oct 18, 2009 1:48 am

Evidence Fabrication in South Africa
1 ... 22, 23, 24by Pat A. Wertheim » Fri Nov 30, 2007 12:48 pm 345 Replies 41741 Views Last post by Neville
Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:40 pm

news article: "McKie inquiry evidence to start"
1 ... 18, 19, 20by Identify » Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:48 am 287 Replies 7089 Views Last post by Big Wullie
Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:45 pm

My story of the week
by Michele » Mon Aug 31, 2009 1:33 pm 4 Replies 675 Views Last post by Pat A. Wertheim
Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:54 am

Criminalist Job Opening in Colorado
by elmoree » Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:54 am 0 Replies 66 Views Last post by elmoree
Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:54 am

Is Leonardo da Vinci the new Jackson Pollock?
by Steve Everist » Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:58 pm 12 Replies 296 Views Last post by Gerald Clough
Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:47 am

How many verifications make an identification?
by rmcase » Tue Oct 13, 2009 3:05 pm 3 Replies 279 Views Last post by Charles Parker
Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:23 am

Texas Governor Perry
by briano » Tue Oct 13, 2009 12:55 pm 4 Replies 211 Views Last post by Charles Parker
Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:10 am

Friction ridge cross-stitch patterns?
by Kasey Wertheim » Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:56 am 1 Replies 92 Views Last post by Gerald Clough
Thu Oct 15, 2009 9:23 am

Legal counsel specialization
by kevin » Wed Oct 07, 2009 5:13 pm 14 Replies 323 Views Last post by kevin
Tue Oct 13, 2009 6:50 pm

news article: no new trial despite fingerprint error
by Identify » Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:01 pm 1 Replies 195 Views Last post by Gerald Clough
Tue Oct 13, 2009 11:09 am

Arie Zeelenberg Unchallenged At Fingerprint Inquiry
by Big Wullie » Thu Oct 08, 2009 8:54 pm 7 Replies 365 Views Last post by Big Wullie
Sun Oct 11, 2009 8:36 am

The New Criminologist
by WRoughead » Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:22 am 0 Replies 139 Views Last post by WRoughead
Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:22 am

Opinions Needed
1, 2 by Forensic Scientist » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:42 am 16 Replies 801 Views Last post by mbeeton
Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:47 am


UPDATES ON CLPEX.com

Updated the format (again) of the Weekly Detail. As many of you noticed last week, the new format didn't display well in many major Internet browsers. In fact, the new e-mail distribution service produced SMTP send errors to some Internet Service Providers, which we also corrected for this week. There are still a few details we will be updating this week, but with the majority of these two issues taken care of, we hope you enjoy the final Weekly Detail format that will last for years to come.

Updated the Detail Archives.

ANNOUNCEMENTS
The Boston Police Department Latent Print Unit has recently been successful at achieving ASCLD-LAB accreditation! Jennifer Hannaford, the supervisor of the unit, says "we all worked hard to meet this milestone and we are very excited about last week's news." Jennifer plans to write up additional details about the accreditation process for approval by department staff. It will appear as a future Weekly Detail for latent print examiners and laboratory managers when it is ready.

LAST WEEK
we looked at Chapter's 1 and 4 of the Fingerprint Sourcebook.

THIS WEEK
we look at the revised draft for comment SWGFAST document entitled "Standard for the Documentation of Analysis, Comparison, Evaluation, and Verification (ACE-V).  As always, it is highly recommended to obtain the intended document format by visiting www.swgfast.org and obtaining the .pdf file; but the text and images (and in this case, the bulleted Discussion that is present within the document) are provided here for convenience.

___________________________________________

DRAFT FOR COMMENT

STANDARD FOR THE DOCUMENTATION OF ANALYSIS, COMPARISON, EVALUATION, AND VERIFICATION (ACE-V)

 

Preamble

When friction ridge detail is examined using the ACE-V methodology, examiners’ documentation shall be such that another qualified examiner can determine what was done and interpret the data. Documentation shall be made at or near the time of the examination and may be in the form of annotated images, narratives, worksheets, annotated legible copies, sketches, AFIS or electronic records, or any combination of these methods. This documentation will be a part of the case record. A case record consists of the administrative and technical records, whether hard copy or electronic, pertaining to a particular case. The case record may include digital or physical files of latent lifts, printed photographs, chain of custody, exemplars, case notes, requests, and reports.

Although all examinations require documentation, the extent of the documentation is related to the complexity of the examination. The friction ridge impression alone is not sufficient documentation. The impression or a legible copy shall be annotated or have accompanying notes.

It is understood that not all information may be available to the examiner. If the information is available, the relevant information shall be noted.

For the purposes of this standard, “latent print” refers to a questioned friction ridge impression and “known print” refers to exemplars of the friction ridge skin. Additionally, the standard refers to the documentation of ACE-V on preserved latent prints (e.g., latent prints recovered on a lift or in a photograph). This standard does not apply to latent prints developed on evidence, but are not preserved.

Agency policy should define what constitutes a latent print “of value”. For example, an agency may determine that prints are “of value” for comparison or that prints are “of value” for individualization.

1    Analysis

1.1 Latent prints of value

1.1.1 Analysis documentation of a latent print of value shall be completed prior to comparison. The quality and quantity of the information present in the latent print will dictate the extent of the documentation (Figure 1). At a minimum, the following shall be documented in the case record:

·   Anatomical source (e.g., fingerprint, palm print)

·   Anatomical orientation (e.g., distal direction)

·   Presence of Level 1 detail

·   Presence of Level 2 detail

 

1.1.2 When known, the following shall be documented within the case record:

·   Substrate

·   Development medium

·   Preservation method (e.g., lift, photograph, legible copy)

1.1.3 The analysis of latent prints may also include documentation of additional factors such as matrix, deposition pressure, lateral movement, rotational movement, Level 3 detail, or other friction ridge skin detail (e.g., creases, scars) (Figure 1).

1.1.4 If the original latent print of value will not be maintained in the case record, a legible copy of the latent print shall be retained.


Discussion

· Marking or noting the anatomical source and anatomical orientation of latent prints documents how the examiner searched or compared, or intends to search or compare, the latent print.
· “Of value” can be indicated by symbols or markings. These symbols or markings could also denote the anatomical source, anatomical orientation, and presence of levels of detail. If used, the agency shall define each symbol and its meaning. If the anatomical source or orientation cannot be determined, this should be noted. For example, if the examiner is unsure of the anatomical source or orientation, a “?” could be placed next to the symbol marking the print.
· The substrate, development medium, or preservation method can have a significant impact on the appearance of a latent print. If the latent print or legible copy is part of the case record and contains this information, it may be considered documented. Substrate, development medium, or preservation method may be recorded in case notes.
· Additional analytical factors, particularly on complex prints, provide the basis for distortion interpretation and explanations for variation in appearance. This information may be documented via annotated images, annotated legible copies of images, notations on a worksheet, or in a narrative description.


Figure 1

Annotated legible copy of latent print from a lift card demonstrating a more detailed documentation of the analysis.

 

1.2 Latent prints of no value

The presence of friction ridge impressions that are of no value shall be documented (Figure 2).

 

  Discussion

· It is important to indicate in the case file that latent prints were analyzed and determined to be of no value. Documentation, for example, may be accomplished by making a “no value” notation (e.g., “NV”) on a lift, photograph, or legible copy retained as part of the case record. Documentation may be accomplished by indicating in case notes that “no value” impressions are present on a lift or photograph.
· Although it is permissible to retain all latent prints, original or legible copies of latent prints that are of no value do not need to be retained in the case record.


Figure 2

Copy of lift card with latent prints of value and latent prints of no value documented. There is a semicircle over the top of each latent print of value for comparison (also marked “A” and “B”). The symbol represents the anatomical source, the anatomical orientation, and the presence of Level 1 and Level 2 detail. The “NV” indicates that there are latent prints of no value also present on the lift card. The substrate is listed on the lift card. The preservation method (lift) and development technique (powder) are evident. In this example, the legible copy is retained as part of the case record.

 

 

2    Comparison

2.1 Documentation, which records the information relied upon during comparison, shall be made for each comparison. Documentation of the comparison relies on both the latent print and known print.

2.2 A legible copy of the known prints used to effect an individualization to a latent print shall be retained in the case record. At a minimum, the following information shall be documented in the case record:

·            Unique identifier of the exemplar such as name, date of birth, assigned identification number, or reference to the specific exemplars (e.g., date of arrest, date of recording)

·         Anatomical source(s) represented in the exemplars (fingerprints, palmprints, or footprints)

 

2.3 When known, the following shall be documented within the case record:

·         Medium (e.g., ink, livescan)

·         Origin (e.g., printed from archive, direct submission)

2.4 If latent prints are not individualized to the known prints, a legible copy of the known prints used for comparison shall be retained or retrievable. The information listed in Section 2.1 shall be documented.

2.5 Known prints that are deemed insufficient for comparison, or that contain any factors that adversely affect the comparison, shall be documented. The quality and quantity of the information present will dictate the extent of the documentation. These factors include:

·   Incomplete recording of the friction ridge skin

·   Missing anatomical sources (e.g., palms, phalanges)

·                     Unclear recording of the friction ridge skin

2.6 If re-analysis of the latent print during the comparison results in new information, supplemental notes shall be added and dated.

 

 Discussion

· Documentation of known prints used for comparison could be accomplished by maintaining a legible copy of the known prints in the case record. A legible copy may contain all the required information listed in 2.1 and 2.2.
· Another method of documentation for exclusions and inconclusive results could be a list of the known prints with the required information in the case notes.
· It is important to document the re-analysis of the latent print when new information is observed. New information may include a significant change to the orientation of the latent print, the anatomical source, or additional ridge detail.
· If the examiner changes the “of value” decision, this shall be documented. The reason for changing the “of value” decision shall also be documented. Any conclusions reached up to the point the examiner changes the “of value” decision shall be documented.


3    Evaluation

3.1 The final conclusion of the comparison of each latent print to each individual shall be documented (Figures 3 and 4).

3.2 Documentation of an individualization shall include:

·   Specific latent friction ridge impression examined

·   Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion

·   Specific anatomical source (e.g., right thumb, left palm)

·   Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner

·   Date conclusion reached

3.3 Documentation of an exclusion shall include:

·   Specific latent friction ridge impression examined

·   Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion

·   Specific anatomical source, if applicable (e.g., right thumb, left hypothenar)

·   Reason (e.g., better exemplars needed, specific anatomical sources needed, insufficient friction ridge detail in agreement)

·   Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner

·   Date conclusion reached

3.4 Documentation of an inconclusive shall include:

·   Specific latent friction ridge impression examined

·   Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion

·   Specific anatomical source, if applicable (e.g., right thumb, left hypothenar)

·   Reason (e.g., better exemplars needed, specific anatomical sources needed, insufficient friction ridge detail in agreement)

·   Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner

·   Date conclusion reached

3.5 Conclusions shall be documented prior to verification.

 

 Discussion

· As an example, individualizations could be documented in the case notes or on a lift, photograph, or legible copy retained as part of the case record (Figures 3 and 4). A legible copy of the specific known prints used to formulate the conclusion shall be retained in the case record.
· The minimum documentation of the known prints under Section 2.2 meets the documentation requirement for the “unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion”. For example, the examiner can record their conclusion for each individual for each latent print in case notes.

Figure 3

Legible copy of a lift card with one latent palm print of value documented with a bracket. The symbol documents the anatomical source and the presence of Level 1 and Level 2 detail. The bracket also indicates the anatomical orientation. The substrate is listed on the lift card. The preservation method (lift) and development technique (powder) are evident. The conclusion is documented on the legible copy of the lift card. In this example, the legible copy of the lift card is retained as part of the case record. The case file will require documentation of the known prints of John SMITH (e.g., a legible copy of the known prints).

Figure 4

This worksheet demonstrates the analysis and evaluation for three latent prints. Note, this particular worksheet records the conclusions for only one subject; additional worksheets would be needed for additional subjects. In this example, the case record would also include the lift card or legible copy that contains markings indicating which latent prints were compared and the anatomical orientation. The case record would also contain documentation of the known prints of JONES (e.g.,  a legible copy of the known prints).

 

4    Verification

Verification shall be documented and include (Figure 5):

·   Specific latent friction ridge impression examined

·   Unique identifier of the exemplar(s) used to reach the conclusion

·   Anatomical source

·   Conclusion of the verifying examiner

·   Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of the verifying examiner

·   Date of verification

 

 Discussion

· All individualizations shall be verified.
· Exclusions and inconclusive results may be verified.
· If the following information is available to the verifier, he or she would not have to separately document the specific latent friction ridge impression examined, the unique identifier of the exemplar(s), the anatomical source, and the conclusion. The verifier’s initials and the date of the verification could be placed on a lift, photograph, legible copy retained as part of the case record, or in the case examiner’s notes.

Figure 5

This worksheet demonstrates the analysis, evaluation, and verification for three latent prints. In this example, the case record would also include the lift card or legible copy that contains markings indicating which latent prints were compared and the anatomical orientation. The case record would also contain documentation of the known prints of JONES (e.g., a legible copy of the known prints).

 

5    Consultations

Consultations shall be documented and include:

·   Specific friction ridge impression reviewed

·   Nature and result of the consultation (e.g., reviewed individualization)

·   Initials, signature, or equivalent (e.g., unique identifier, electronic signature) of examiner(s)

·   Date of consultation

 

 

 Discussion


· Consultation is a significant interaction between examiners regarding one or more impressions in question [1]. Each agency shall define what constitutes a significant interaction.
· The purpose of documenting a consultation is to record information or guidance obtained as a result of the consultation. If examiners have significant interaction on a particular print, the consulted examiner shall not be used as the verifier for that particular print.

 

6    General References

            1. SWGFAST, Glossary, 5/8/09, ver. 2.0.

____________________________________________
Feel free to pass The Detail along to other examiners for Fair Use. This is a not-for-profit newsletter FOR latent print examiners, BY latent print examiners. The website is open for all to visit!

If you have not yet signed up to receive the Weekly Detail in YOUR e-mail inbox, go ahead and join the list now so you don't miss out! (To join this free e-mail newsletter, enter your name and e-mail address on the following page: http://www.clpex.com/Subscribe.htm You will be sent a Confirmation e-mail... just click on the link in that e-mail, or paste it into an Internet Explorer address bar, and you are signed up!) If you have problems receiving the Detail from a work e-mail address, there have been past issues with department e-mail filters considering the Detail as potential unsolicited e-mail. Try subscribing from a home e-mail address or contact your IT department to allow e-mails from Topica. Members may unsubscribe at any time. If you have difficulties with the sign-up process or have been inadvertently removed from the list, e-mail me personally at kaseywertheim@aol.com and I will try to work things out.
 

Until next Monday morning, don't work too hard or too little.

Have a GREAT week!
Detail Archives Discuss This Issue Subscribe to The Detail Search Past Details Unsubscribe